Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FilmCompanion

[edit]

It looks like we're being subjected to a months-long spam campaign here. For example, see Special:Diff/1052988879, Special:Diff/1049337705, Special:Diff/1026774898, Special:Diff/1047167583, Special:Diff/1050512053, and Special:Diff/1025745983. Notice how they all include utm_source=Wikipedia and some sort of "seeding" campaign. Sorry, but it's been too long since I dealt with this stuff, and I don't remember so well how the anti-spam bots work, but I'm pretty sure this is still going on. The most recent spam I've found is from this month, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FilmCompanion - additional

[edit]
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \..*?(\?

@NinjaRobotPirate: We can add a regex like above to block every domain with that parameter (or is it just this domain)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. From an "insource:" search, it looks like other people are using that string, too. For example: Special:Diff/995687087, Special:Diff/1011444828, Special:Diff/984857057, Special:Diff/973697612. These are pretty old, but I don't remember a better way to find this stuff. It's been too long since I cleaned up after a big spam ring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: suggestions, and would this be something that we should globally ban? Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra and NinjaRobotPirate: No, from my observations it looks for a domain part near the protocol marker, so it cannot solely filter on the uri component nude of the protocol. In global filters I have used a broader generic TLD regex with the immediate uri component where it follows directly after the forward slash. I would think that a regex with TLD/otherpartofURI/?matchtext may have some interesting aspects to it. I think that an abuse filter may be better suited to your needs as it can target that specifically and in a url, rather than general text. The only time I have seen URI components caught in blacklists are where they do contain the protocol type as part of the uri, so {http://}domain.org/sometext/{http://}baddommain.org

The search utm_source=wikipedia gives 285 interesting results and similarly utm_source= search saus 66,841 results soe of which are mediawiki: ns — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I guess that a global filter would then be the better solution here. Probably best to record be<redacted>. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia does not utilise global filters. It is only small, medium, and opted-in large wikis that utilise them. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should then do a drive to have local copies of some of them, with some regular update? Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

citybusinessicons.com

[edit]

Spam from IP ranges too wide to block; no value as a reference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wisepowder

[edit]
Spammers

Persistent spamming, please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jelvix.com

[edit]

Sporadic citespamming over the last few years. Got an indef block as YuliiaSoroka, so this is block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Noted that one editor got a pretty strong warning to stop spamming and a new account came the next day to continue on same page. Also noting that this is also rampant on ru.wikipedia, so I expect that we will soon have to do this one globally. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Spamming has continued on this one - looks like the regex is broken. '\bjelvix\.com \b' was added - I think the trailing space after .com is preventing the regex from matching the spam links. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few other instances of this on the blacklist that could use a double check: highstrangeness.tv, csi80048436282250.webs.com, kotastone.org and exams4sure.net - MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: I have removed a handful of those spaces, must have been quite some broken rules there. Thanks for spotting this. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

top100 blog charts

[edit]
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: top100\w*\.blog
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: charly1300
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: mickeycharts
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: atrl.net\/forums
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: hot100brasil\.com
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: twitter.*?\/mickeycharts\b

Filter 554 is used to block spammy refs, matching the above regex. Pretty much the only disallow filter for sources, and not subject to community discussion, so probably shouldn't be a filter. Should be moved to the spam blacklist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I split the regex into 5 domain regexes and tried to find some actual links as examples. Can you point me to examples for charly1300 and mickeycharts? (I just want to see whether we should immediately up this to XWiki. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I think mickeycharts was mickeycharts.com (eg, Twitter), but seems to be an unregistered domain now. For charly1300: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/charly1300.com ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

niyogibooksindia.com

[edit]
niyogibooksindia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spam campaign from at least three users. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

city-data.com

[edit]
Reason to delist

city-data.com does not fit the definition of a spam website. For those that don't know, it scrapes publicly-available datasources, mostly governmental, and presents the information graphically. It is a very useful website for US town and city articles, as can be seen from the fact that it is used in 5,160 articles. Yes, it is a commercial website and has advertisements, and can be considered a primary source, but primary sources are perfectly fine for uncontroversial statements such as "Florence, Colorado was incorporated in 1887." There are a lot of instances of city-data.com links being put in "External links" sections, but that should be solved by having a bot go through and remove them, not by blacklisting. Abductive (reasoning) 11:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: no Declined. 'For those that don't know, it scrapes publicly-available datasources' .. indeed, it scrapes other sources (regardless of the quality of the source), does not always mention the source, and adds a sauce of advertising. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2019#Advameg_sites_(city-data.com,_filmreference.com,_etc.) where it was described as 'a content farm primarily designed to bring visitors to advertisers. They are often brought to attention in spam reports, reliable sources discussions, and related to copyright violations. The data is not attributed to specific authors, there appears to be no editorial policy, and some data is user-generated - making them unreliable sources'. The data is scraped, so there is an original source (the actual primary source), and that should be used (and the references that are still there should be removed). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those statements in the previous discussion are backed up by anything substantial. What spam reports? What reliable source discussions? What copvyvio? The user-contributed material is photos and forum discussions, as far as I can tell. Nobody is using city-data for spammy purposes, except, as I said, in the External links. Abductive (reasoning) 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined again. The spam reports are linked above. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive: Have you actually followed the discussion I linked above and then followed the discussions there. It is also mentioned on WP:RSP (which in itself links to 16 discussions on Advancemeg sites). The site itself states "Please note that a lot of content on our site is user-generated. For example, city photos, forum messages, city facts, and business profiles are all submitted by visitors." (www.city-data.com/contacts.html). The same page explains explicitly how to get advertisements on 'your page' on Advancemeg sites, which is a great incentive to then make sure that other websites link to 'your page' on the Advancemeg sites and get some extra revenue. Wikipedia appears to be a happy target for free placements of links, and with that great incentive I would certainly qualify such websites as 'spam'.
The discussions linked suggest there are severe problems with this site (copyvio being one of them). What is linked should be removed or replaced, and since the same faith should be performed for fresh additions at the earliest, it is better to prohibit the additions in the first place. Alternatives exist, use those. no Declined (and I agree, that 5160 should be reduced to less than 5, and those should then be whitelisted - and not only the external links, also this for example). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their user-generated content is clearly labeled as such. Nearly every website on Earth has ads. Although it may not be a reliable source, nobody can point to a case where it actually was unreliable. Anyway, I still feel the site is useful, and that blacklisting is too harsh, but it seems I will not prevail. Abductive (reasoning) 15:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive: show me where CNN or Wikipedia explains explicitly how to earn money by setting up displaying ads on targeted webpages. And you ignore the whole scraping point, just taking the one point you can counter (though without reassurance that others will not blindly ignore that it is user generated and just use it as a source). Dirk Beetstra T C 15:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you guys are coming from. Still useful to me. Abductive (reasoning) 15:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hashroot.com

[edit]

The user placed a COI link in two articles here and here that led to a page that my malware detector flagged as carrying the JS:Trojan.Cryxos.6843 virus. Largoplazo (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem (COIBot should save a report to do this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

block.xyz

[edit]
Reason to delist

Forgive me if I post this in the wrong section, not sure if it looks like its a technical issue or if this link is in the blacklist. Recently, Square, Inc. has been renamed to Block, Inc. Their new corporate website is now block.xyz. If there's any press releases from Block, Inc., it can be used as reference.20chances (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Whitelist OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

heylawedu.id

[edit]
Reason to delist

heylawedu.id is not a spammy website. Rather, they have worked with several Indonesian universities to provide online law education. As far as I know, Heylaw has helped Indonesian law students to get new law information or updates. The website also provides online classes and webinars for us to access online law education with the professor they have worked with. As you can see, Heylaw is credible to provide information for another trusted website like [1] and [2]. Also you can see here [3] that Heylaw has worked with several Indonesian lecturers, so we can consider that Heylaw helps us as student to access online law education. Dina Larasati (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dina Larasati: no Declined, not blacklisted here, rather on https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirk Beetstra: Thank you in advance for the information. Can you tell me how to unlisted the domain heylawedu.id in that page https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? 09:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Dina Larasati: I presume you can request on the talkpage of the page I pointed you to, but I am not aware of the system on id.wikipedia. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thearticle.online

[edit]

Spammed on pages linked from the Main Page by IPs listed above (e.g. 1). Not in any way a reliable source so no need for anyone to link to this. firefly ( t · c ) 09:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra thank ye kindly! :) firefly ( t · c ) 09:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

spacious.hk

[edit]
spacious.hk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello!
I just talked to Elli and she mentioned me here to find my answer. Could you please help me to solve my problem?
Can you please assist me to remove a domain from the Wikipedia spam blacklist?
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahfujNahid (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify what domain you're talking about. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jamie,
Thanks a lot for your reply!
The domain is spacious.hk. Would you mind to suggest me what to do to remove this domain from the spam blacklist? Hopefully, at least you won't disappoint me, brother.
Look forward to hearing some good news from you.
Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MahfujNahid (talk • contribs)

 Defer to Whitelist It was added a few years ago because of heavy spamming, per this report. I see the link already exists at Spacious, which is the only place it would be needed on Wikipedia. If the link is keeping you from editing Spacious, you can make a whitelist request so that the corp link can remain there. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is nothing on the spacious.hk website that would be appropriate for a citation in a Wikipedia article, and the Spacious article already has a link to a page on the website. What else is needed? If a trusted, high-volume contributor feels that the site should be removed from the blacklist, we will consider the request. But we can whitelist a specific link if needed.
Also, MahfujNahid, if you are associated with the domain in any way, you must declare that association. If you are being paid, see WP:PAID for guidance on the declaration. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information.
It is not paid. Another real estate company decided to own the business. I am their social media assistant. They have noticed this problem and let me know if I can fix this issue.
I am surprised! This is a renowned company. Then how can occurred that heavy spamming!
So now, can you please help me to make this domain blacklisted to whitelisted? I'll be very thankful to you brother. It's my request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MahfujNahid (talk • contribs)

No, as we've already clearly explained, there's no use for links to this site on Wikipedia besides the Spacious article. If you are their social media assistant, than it is "paid" in the sense that you have a WP:COI, unless you're their volunteer social media assistant. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! So if they remove the links from their page then it will be turned to whitelist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MahfujNahid (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No; whitelisting just means we allow for a single specific link to be used, but otherwise enforce blacklisting on all other links to the domain. In this case, that's not necessary, as I've converted the link to a bare domain name in Spacious, which won't trigger the blacklisting if further edits need to be made. Please read WP:WHITELIST for further info. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need the website to be whitelisted? Is it so that colleagues of yours can spam it to articles such as the edit made by Asifghafoor1979 to Haunted house? – NJD-DE (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! That was a mistake and we can ensure that it'll never happen again.
So this time can you help us to whitelist the spacious article? As well as we want to create a new page named "Asif Ghafoor". Can you assist us please?
Thnaks,
Mahfuj.

For the last time, no. Any further requests will be deleted, and you're very close to being blocked per WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

upguys.com

[edit]

Per COIBot. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


businesstimes.org

[edit]

Hopping accounts to avoid scrutiny, mostly hijacks existing references: example - MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (can you not just become an admin so you can just blacklist this crap yourself?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fear I'm too opinionated for the RFA process. MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not free of opinions either (I have a rather strong one on top of my user talk page), and I think you would be of great help here. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signsny

[edit]
Link

See [4] for previously tagged IPs/users. And this from today

Time to blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (as what I said to MrOllie above, isn't it time that you become an admin so you can blacklist this yourself?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the current arrangement is fine.-KH-1 (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lionjek.com

[edit]

I want to request from the administrators and admins of wikipedia please remove my website Lionjek.com. I had given a work to my website editor to share my website on other platforms. But he makes a mistake and he shared a lot of links on a single wikipedia page. I had fired him from his job. I am really sorry for that. I am an administrator of lionjek.com and I want to make a request please remove my website lionjek.com from spam list. I guarnteed this website will never create any type of spam on wikipedia. We write quality content on my website lionjek.com. I am really sorry for that mistake. We will never create any type of spam in future on wikipedia. Please remove our website from spamlist. Please forgive me and give at least one chance to rectify the mistake. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.241.76 (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to resolve all the issues please belive me and our site and give atleast one chance to rectify my mistakes. I only want one chance. Please belive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshulv993 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, bad faith request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

digipatrika.com

[edit]
plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'my site'

[edit]

Please remove my site from spam list Adityakr495 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityakr495: please read the instructions at the top of this page, and then tell us please which site you are talking about. Note that it is very, very rare that we remove sites from the list when site-owners request it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

themoviedb.org (and tmdb.org)

[edit]

Why is themoviedb.org (and its link-through tmdb.org) on the blacklist, when it very prominently features as a main data property on Wikidata (see "Wikidata property" section here)? I've had to hide instances (i.e. <!-- themoviedb.org --> ) on its page at The Movie Database accordingly, just to submit it's own English language page (Note. It already has a page on nine other WP languages).
Please remove. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess for the reasons that were laid out the last time you asked about this: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2017#themoviedb.org_/_The_Movie_Database - MrOllie (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was several years ago, and things have certainly moved on. TMDb now appears on nine other WP language sites, and as previously mentioned above, has Wikidata properties. Link usage should now be allowed to follow similar sites like IMDb's usage: allowing "External links" section usage, but remain not as citation sources.
To be clear, I am in no way affiliated to either site (although I used to be a contributor to IMDb for a while), and they each take their data from user generated content overseen by moderation. Hence they should both be treated equally in regards to external links section use accordingly. A bad actor(s) spamming TMDb as citations from years earlier should not be used as an excuse to ban the usage of links from a site indefinitely from external links sections. Jimthing (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimthing: no Declined. And you know very, very well why it is on the blacklist, Jimthing. You are very aware that Travis Bell was here promoting this site, you rewrote his draft which then got deleted, and now you are rewriting it again without significant notability. The only use of this site would be on its subject page, which can be handled by the whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the whole article has been re-written with a load of extra information now added. So please can admins actually consider the facts as they are today please, which have absolutely nothing to do with past actions. Otherwise we'd forever ban things because someone at some past time, years earlier, did something. This is completely unfair way to judge current editors, who have no relation with those events whatsoever. I really am getting fed up of these past events being used to tarnish my efforts, when I had absolutely no part in them. Jimthing (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimthing: Yes, there is a lot of info, and not a single reliable source showing it is notable. Anyway, with the passed spamming I would really just whitelist for one page - the subject page - and then do case-by-case evaluations whether it is useful elsewhere before de-listing. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: While those discussions continue. Have WP considered renaming various Blacklist & Whitelist pages to Blocklist & Allowlist by now? Strange they remain on WP, TBH, as (outside the racism stuff) they're clearer. [EDIT: Oh, maybe not now then, lol!] Jimthing (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimthing: yes, but that is not something 'we' can solve on en.wikipedia. It needs the developers of the MediaWiki software to change it. Also the 'spam' part in the name is a misnomer - there are many sites on the list that are not there because of spam, but because of other forms of disruption or because of community consensus. Moreover, there are 'technical' issues which are problematic. Those requests to change/upgrade though are, as usual, pending. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ortadoguhaberler.com

[edit]

Owned (and spammed) by globally blocked user User:علي أبو عمر. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adapted this report: diff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

everybodywiki.com

[edit]

everybodywiki.com seems to be scraping wikipedia including possibly drafts. I've noticed them a few times now used in AfC articles. A quick search showed only one, now-removed, use in mainspace but seeing as this will never be a reliable source should it be blacklisted?Slywriter (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed hundreds of links from this site; it's on a list of mirrors I watch for daily. In addition to mirroring the content of both main and draft spaces on Wikipedia, it's also a wide open wiki with zero editorial control. 90% of the time, this is used for self-promotional or spam articles. While I typically don't support adding mirrors to the blacklist, this one has been used abusively by a very large number of people. I'd be in favor of blacklisting it - there is absolutely zero chance of it ever being used as a source or an external link. Kuru (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kuru and Slywriter: I created a datadump in m:user talk:COIBot/LinkReports/everybodywiki.com (there are too many records for a regular report). Can you have a look whether there is evidence for systemic abuse? Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, I will take a look today.Slywriter (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple spammed domains

[edit]

Domains that came up while investigating m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#xwiki_spam_links but were not spammed xwiki (or at least not enough to merit global blacklisting). GeneralNotability (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2021&oldid=1064207958"